ANIMAL FORUM

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2006 18:06:20 -0700, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 25 Apr 2006 18:04:16 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Unless you can provide at least one, we both understand that you
are
>> >> >> incapable of understanding any reason(s) to promote life for livestock
over
>> >> >> wildlife. For some reason the topic is beyond your ability, so why
pretend
>> >> >> that its not?
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolute nonsense. Im fairly confident you havent provided any
>> >> >reasons, but if you have and I cant recall them off the top of my
>> >> >head, that proves nothing.
>> >>
>> >> Its up to you to show whether or not the topic is beyond your
ability,
>> >> not me. If you cant even think of one reason to promote livestock over
>> >> wildlife, then what makes you think youd be able to appreciate any if
>> >> I pointed them out? Steak for example is one reason. So is milk. Thats
>> >> two. They are meaningless to you, but significant to many humans and
>> >> many livestock....
>> >>
>> >
>> >Okay, well if the self-interested desire to eat steak and drink millk
>> >is a good reason to bring livestock into existence rather than
>> >wildlife, even though this will mean fewer animals will exist overall,
>>
>> Thats something you claim to be true without backing up, and not only
>> do I *not* take your word for it being true, but I believe you are wrong.
>> So that argument is non-existent imo.
>>
>> >then why isnt respecting the rights of livestock a good reason for not
>> >breeding any more livestock?
>>
>> No reason to respect rights they dont have. Plus. Providing them with
>> life comes closer to promoting an imaginary right to life than not doing
>> so imo, if were going to pretend they have one.
>
>No, this is not true,

>and the thought-experiment involving the movie
>The Island ought to make this clear to you.

>> It alwasy ends up with
>> my suggestion meaning decent lives for livestock and your suggestion
>> meaning none--which would be the *obvious!* result--but for some
>> unexplainable reason you want to claim some credit for respecting the
>> lives of the very potential beings you want to prevent from having any!
>> How do you persuade yourself that preventing lives, respects any
>> potential beings imaginary right to life?
>>
>
>As the thought-experiment involving the movie The Island should have
>made clear to you, refraining from bringing a being into existence does
>not involve any violation of the right to life,

>but bringing it into existence and then killing it does.

>> >> [...]
>> >> >> >> >I dont think the process of raising animals to be eaten is always
>> >> >> >> >cruel.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Under what conditions do you think its not? Why dont you
believe the lives
>> >> >> >> of such animals should be given as much or more consideration than
their
>> >> >> >> deaths, and/or as the lives of possible(?) potential wildlife?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >As Ive tried to explain to you, I believe that bringing a being into
>> >> >> >existence and then killing it is wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you do believe its always cruel and are therefore incapable
of
>> >> >> distinguishing between when it is and when its not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I am capable of distinguishing between the case where the being lives a
>> >> >good life and the case where the being lives a miserable life.
>> >>
>> >> LOL...but not to the point that you would allow the good life, so your
pretense to
>> >> some sort of distinguishing would be nothing if you had control, since
you would
>> >> eliminate all of it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Sure I would allow the good life. I dont think anyone has an
>> >obligation to cause the good life to happen, but they can if they want
>> >to. What I dont think they are permitted to do is end the life
>> >prematurely.
>>
>>

> On 29 Apr 2006 18:18:06 -0700, Rupert wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 27 Apr 2006 18:06:20 -0700, Rupert wro=
te:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Apr 2006 18:04:16 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Unless you can provide at least one, we both understand that=
you are
> >> >> >> incapable of understanding any reason(s) to promote life for liv=
estock over
> >> >> >> wildlife. For some reason the topic is beyond your ability, so w=
hy pretend
> >> >> >> that its not?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Absolute nonsense. Im fairly confident you havent provided any
> >> >> >reasons, but if you have and I cant recall them off the top of my
> >> >> >head, that proves nothing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Its up to you to show whether or not the topic is beyond your =
ability,
> >> >> not me. If you cant even think of one reason to promote livestock =
over
> >> >> wildlife, then what makes you think youd be able to appreciate any=
if
> >> >> I pointed them out? Steak for example is one reason. So is milk. Th=
ats
> >> >> two. They are meaningless to you, but significant to many humans and
> >> >> many livestock....
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, well if the self-interested desire to eat steak and drink millk
> >> >is a good reason to bring livestock into existence rather than
> >> >wildlife, even though this will mean fewer animals will exist overall,
> >>
> >> Thats something you claim to be true without backing up, and not =
only
> >> do I *not* take your word for it being true, but I believe you are wro=
ng.
> >> So that argument is non-existent imo.
> >>
> >> >then why isnt respecting the rights of livestock a good reason for n=
ot
> >> >breeding any more livestock?
> >>
> >> No reason to respect rights they dont have. Plus. Providing them =
with
> >> life comes closer to promoting an imaginary right to life than not doi=
ng
> >> so imo, if were going to pretend they have one.
> >
> >No, this is not true,
>
> Then explain how you can promote any right to life at all, for an ima=
ginary
> being who never exists.
>
> >and the thought-experiment involving the movie
> >The Island ought to make this clear to you.
>
> It did nothing in that regard. The thought-experiment involving the p=
orcupines
> that you will never raise ought to make this clear to you.
>

> >> It alwasy ends up with
> >> my suggestion meaning decent lives for livestock and your suggestion
> >> meaning none--which would be the *obvious!* result--but for some
> >> unexplainable reason you want to claim some credit for respecting the
> >> lives of the very potential beings you want to prevent from having any!
> >> How do you persuade yourself that preventing lives, respects any
> >> potential beings imaginary right to life?
> >>
> >
> >As the thought-experiment involving the movie The Island should have
> >made clear to you, refraining from bringing a being into existence does
> >not involve any violation of the right to life,
>
> Regardless of that, it certainly does nothing to promote any right to=
life,
> or anything at all.
>

> >but bringing it into existence and then killing it does.
>
> As Ive pointed out many times, the biggest difference between raising
> animals for food and not, is their lives not their deaths. So why is it t=
hat
> people are so opposed to considering their lives? Because you can not
> be made to care, nor will you voluntarily make any attempt to. Its not my
> fault that problem exists, but since it does I feel it should be pointed =
out
> when it becomes an issue.
>

> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> >> >I dont think the process of raising animals to be eaten is =
always
> >> >> >> >> >cruel.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Under what conditions do you think its not? Why dont yo=
u believe the lives
> >> >> >> >> of such animals should be given as much or more consideration=
than their
> >> >> >> >> deaths, and/or as the lives of possible(?) potential wildlife?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >As Ive tried to explain to you, I believe that bringing a bein=
g into
> >> >> >> >existence and then killing it is wrong.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then you do believe its always cruel and are therefore inca=
pable of
> >> >> >> distinguishing between when it is and when its not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I am capable of distinguishing between the case where the being li=
ves a
> >> >> >good life and the case where the being lives a miserable life.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL...but not to the point that you would allow the good life, s=
o your pretense to
> >> >> some sort of distinguishing would be nothing if you had control, si=
nce you would
> >> >> eliminate all of it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sure I would allow the good life. I dont think anyone has an
> >> >obligation to cause the good life to happen, but they can if they want
> >> >to. What I dont think they are permitted to do is end the life
> >> >prematurely.
> >>
> >>